Yoma 2bיומא ב׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
2bב׳ ב

ואימא צוה [צוה] דיום הכפורים דכתיב (ויקרא טז, לד) ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה דנין צוה דלפני עשיה מצוה דלפני עשיה ואין דנין צוה דלאחר עשיה מצוה דלפני עשיה

The Gemara asks: And say that there is indeed a verbal analogy; however, it is not between the red heifer and the inauguration of the priests, but between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded in the context of Yom Kippur, as it is written: “And this will be an everlasting statute for you, to atone for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year; and he did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 16:34). In that case, only the sequestering prior to Yom Kippur can be derived. The Gemara rejects this, as a verbal analogy is derived only between functionally similar phrases. One derives commanded that is stated before performance, as in the portion of the heifer, from commanded that is stated before performance in the portion of the inauguration; and one does not derive commanded that is stated after performance in the portion of Yom Kippur from commanded that is stated before performance.

ואימא צוה דקרבנות דכתיב (ויקרא ז, לח) ביום צותו את בני ישראל דנין צוה מצוה ואין דנין צותו מצוה

Again the Gemara asks: And say that there is a verbal analogy between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term commanded with regard to offerings, as it is written: “On the day that He commanded [tzavoto] the children of Israel to sacrifice their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38). The result would be that any priest sacrificing a communal offering would require sequestering for seven days. The Gemara rejects this: One derives the term commanded from the identical term commanded, and one does not derive the term that he commanded [tzavoto] from the term commanded [tziva].

ומאי נפקא מינה והתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יד, לט) ושב הכהן ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the practical difference between the two terms? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: “And the priest shall return [veshav]” (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: “And the priest shall come [uva]” (Leviticus 14:44)? From that verbal analogy it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; and this is the same halakha with regard to coming, i.e., it is also after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference in grammatical forms between tziva and tzavoto should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.

הני מילי היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל היכא דאיכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן

The Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only where there are no terms that are identical to it; however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms that are identical to it, rather than from terms that are merely similar.

לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים ואימא כפרה דקרבנות

§ The Gemara analyzes the verbal analogy from which the sequestering of the High Priest is derived. The Gemara states with regard to the phrase “to make atonement,” written in the context of the inauguration: These are the actions performed on Yom Kippur. The Gemara suggests: And say that it refers to the atonement of offerings in general, such that any priest engaged in sacrificing atonement offerings must be sequestered seven days beforehand.

מי ידעינן הי כהן מתרמי דבעי ליה פרישה אמרי אלמה לא ניבעי ליה פרישה לכוליה משמרת בית אב דנין דבר שקבוע לו זמן מדבר שקבוע לו זמן לאפוקי קרבנות דכל יומא איתנהו

The Gemara seeks to reject this suggestion from a practical perspective. Do we know in advance which priest will happen to sacrifice a given offering, and who would consequently require sequestering? The Sages say: Why not? There are certainly ways to do so. Each of the twenty-four priestly watches has set weeks during which it serves in the Temple, and the patrilineal families that constitute that watch have set days during that week on which each serves in the Temple. We could require sequestering for the entire patrilineal family of the priestly watch designated to serve on that day the following week. The Gemara rejects the suggestion that all priests should be sequestered prior to sacrificing an atonement offering. We derive a matter that has a fixed time during the year, Yom Kippur, from a matter that also has a fixed time, the inauguration of the priests for service in the Tabernacle, to the exclusion of offerings that are sacrificed every day.

ואימא רגלים דנין דבר שנוהג פעם אחת בשנה מדבר הנוהג פעם אחת בשנה לאפוקי רגלים דלאו פעם אחת בשנה נינהו

Again the Gemara asks: And say that one derives from the phrase “to make atonement” the principle of sequestering prior to sacrificing atonement offerings on the Festivals, which have fixed times. The Gemara rejects this: We derive a matter that is performed once a year, the service of Yom Kippur, from a matter that is performed once a year, like the inauguration, which was a one-time event, to the exclusion of the service on the Festivals, which is not performed once a year; rather, it is performed three times a year.

ואימא רגל אחד וכי תימא לא ידעינן הי מינייהו אי חג המצות הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב תחלה אי חג הסוכות הואיל ומרובה מצותו

The Gemara asks: And say that the service on one Festival of the three, which is performed once a year, should require sequestering. And if you say: We do not know which of them is the most significant and requires sequestering, since one could suggest that it is Passover, with which the verse opened, as the Torah always lists it first among the Festivals; or one could suggest that it is Sukkot, since its mitzva is to bring numerous offerings, many more than the number brought on the other Festivals.

אלא דנין פרישת שבעה ליום אחד מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד ואין דנין פרישת שבעה לשבעה מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד

Rather, the Gemara rejects this possibility and explains: One derives sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, Yom Kippur, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. And one does not derive sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for seven days, a Festival, from sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day, the inauguration. Therefore, atonement offerings on Festivals are not derived from the inauguration.

ואימא שמיני דפרישת שבעה ליום אחד הוא דנין דבר שאין קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו ואין דנין דבר שיש קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו

The Gemara asks: And say that the sequestering for seven days is prior to the festival of the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that would also be sequestering for seven days prior to performing a service for one day. The Gemara rejects this: One derives a matter before which there is not sanctity, Yom Kippur, which is preceded by weekdays, from a matter before which there is not sanctity, the day of the inauguration, which was also preceded by weekdays. And we do not derive a matter before which there is sanctity, the Eighth Day of Assembly, which is preceded by the seven days of Sukkot, from a matter before which there is not sanctity.

ולאו קל וחומר הוא השתא דבר שאין קדושה לפניו בעי פרישה דבר שיש קדושה לפניו לא כל שכן אמר רב משרשיא לא הזה כתיב כזה

The Gemara challenges this: And is it not an a fortiori inference? Now, if a matter before which there is not sanctity requires sequestering, due to its sanctity, then with regard to a matter before which there is sanctity, all the more so is it not clear that it should require sequestering? Rav Mesharshiyya said in rejection of this challenge: No, there is no a fortiori inference here, as the verse: “As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), is written to emphasize specifically a day like this day; precisely as it was for the inauguration, and not in any other situation.

רב אשי אמר מי איכא מידי דעיקר רגל לא בעי פרישה טפל דידיה בעי פרישה ואפילו למאן דאמר שמיני רגל בפני עצמו הוא הני מילי לענין

Rav Ashi said: There is another reason why it could not be that sequestering is required prior to the Eighth Day of Assembly. Is there any matter where the primary Festival, the first day of Sukkot, does not require sequestering, as was already proven, while that which is secondary to it requires sequestering? Since the Eighth Day of Assembly is an addendum to Sukkot, could its sanctity and stringency be greater than that which is associated with the primary Festival? And even according to the one who said: The Eighth Day of Assembly is a Festival in and of itself and is not part of the festival of Sukkot, that applies only to the matter of